Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781337374835
Author: CROSS
Publisher: CENGAGE L
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 19, Problem 4BCP
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Persons W and M, shareholders of firm C, filed a law suit against other shareholders MH and K and accountant J for breach of duty. Persons W and M claimed that accountant J acted on behalf of MH and K and caused disadvantages to them. It was alleged that J had purposely altered the books of firm C to increase the financial liabilities of W and M.
To find:The duty of J towards W and M.
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Persons W and M, shareholders of the firm C, filed a law suit against other shareholders MH and K and accountant J for breach of duty. Persons W and M claimed that accountant J acted on behalf of MH and K and caused disadvantages to them. It was alleged that J had purposely altered the books of firm C to increase the financial liabilities of W and M.
To find:The possibility of the breach of duty by person J.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
"Lillian Pritchard was a director of Pritchard & Baird Corporation, a business founded by her husband. After the death of her husband, her sons took control of the corporation. For two years, they looted the assets of the corporation through theft and improper payments. The corporation’s financial statements revealed the improper payments to the sons, but Mrs. Pritchard did not read the financial statements. She did not know what her sons were doing to the corporation or that what they were doing was unlawful. When Mrs. Pritchard was sued for failing to protect the assets of the corporation, she argued that she was a figurehead director, a simple housewife who served as a director as an accommodation to her husband and sons. Was Mrs. Pritchard held liable?"
Muller, a shareholder of SCM, brought an action against SCM over his unsuccessful negotiations to purchase some of SCM’s assets overseas. He then formed a shareholder committee to challenge the position of SCM’s management in that suit. To conduct a proxy battle for management control at the next election of directors, the committee sought to obtain the list of shareholders who would be eligible to vote. At the time, however, no member of the committee had owned stock in SCM for the six-month period required to gain access to such information. Then Lopez, a former SCM executive and a shareholder for more than one year, joined the committee and demanded to be allowed to inspect the minutes of SCM shareholder proceedings and to gain access to the current shareholder list. His stated reason for making the demand was to solicit proxies in support of those the committee had nominated for positions as directors. Lopez brought this action after SCM rejected this demand. Will Lopez succeed?
Quincy forms a manufacturing corporation, the Fabri-Q Co. (Fabri-Q). He is the sole shareholder. He
does not keep records of any dividends and very little records of the corporation's accounts. Ten
months after the formation and incorporation of Fabri-Q, one of Fabri-Q's products injures a user
and Fabri-Q is sued. Which of the following ordinarily is a reason for a court to hold Quincy
personally liable?
O If Quincy is not held liable, creditors would not be fully compensated.
O Fabri-Q's headquarters was at the same address as another business that Quincy.
O The corporation did not elect any directors.
O Quincy decides to use some of the profits from Fabri-Q - paid to him as a dividend to pay his personal debts.
O Quincy served as the CEO and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of Fabri-Q.
Chapter 19 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?arrow_forwardHutchins and O’Neil, as general partners in the Haddon View Investment Co., became limited partners in Car Wash Investments. The general partner in Car Wash was the Minit Man Development Company. Coopers and Lybrand accountants handled the accounting work for both Minit Man and Car Wash. They performed audits and prepared financial statements that allegedly revealed two healthy companies. Nevertheless, both Car Wash and Minit Man went out of business. As a result, Hutchins and O’Neil lost a total of $252,000. They sued Coopers and Lybrand, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, concealment, fraud, and deceit in the accountants’ work for Car Wash and Minit Man. Coopers and Lybrand argued that Hutchins and O’Neil could not sue the firm because Car Wash and Minit Man were the clients, not Hutchins and O’Neil. Were the accountants correct?arrow_forwardWalker, the CEO of Memphis Mini Golf and Go Carts (MMGGC), wanted to sell the business to Go Carts, Golf & Games. To provide a basis for the transaction, Walker retained Blanchard, an accountant, to conduct an audit of MMGGC. Blanchard was aware that Go Carts, Golf & Games would likely use the audit report in consideration of the purchase of the business from MMGGC. Blanchard's audit report showed that MMGGC’s business was profitable. William, Go Cart’s president, relied on this report in agreeing to purchase the business of MMGGC and in agreeing to the terms of the purchase. Sometime later, it was discovered that the accountant made a number of mistakes and that the business that was sold was actually insolvent. William and Go Carts sued Walker and Blanchard for damages. The suit claimed that the accountant had negligently misrepresented the facts. Discuss the arguments for each party, determine which party should win, and provide legal support for your decision.arrow_forward
- Pritchard & Baird was a reinsurance broker. A reinsurance broker arranges contracts between insurance companies so that companies that have sold large policies may sell participations in these policies to other companies in order to share the risks. Charles Pritchard, who died in December 2011, controlled Pritchard & Baird for many years. Prior to his death, he brought his two sons, Charles Jr. and William, into the business. The pair assumed an increas ingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2008, Charles Jr. and William began to withdraw from the corporate account ever-increasing sums that were designated as “loans” on the balance sheet. These “loans,” however, represented a significant misappropriation of funds belonging to the corporation’s clients. By late 2013, Charles Jr. and William had plunged the corporation into hopeless bankruptcy. A total of $12,333,514.47 in “loans” had accumulated by October of that…arrow_forwardParker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to…arrow_forwardTri R Angus, a closely held corporation, was owned 80 percent by Jon and Frances Neiman, who were also directors of Tri R Angus. Troy Neiman and Carol Lewis owned 12 percent of Tri R Angus’s shares. Troy and Carol asked a court to remove Jon and Frances as directors of the corporation on the grounds that they authorized Tri R Angus to distribute its assets in violation of state law, inappropriately mortgaged or sold corporate assets, misused corporate earnings, and wasted corporate assets. Jon and Frances denied the allegations. At trial, Troy and Carol entered as evidence pleadings from other actions against Jon and Frances and introduced no objective evidence of current conduct by Jon or Frances. What standard of misconduct did the court require Troy and Carol to prove in order to remove Jon and Frances? Did the court find they had proved their case?arrow_forward
- Snitch, an officer of Undergrowth Corporation, tells Gumst about fraudulent dealings going on within Undergrowth, and urges Gumst to investigate the matter. Gumst begins to investigate and he discovers wrongdoing. During the investigation, he mentions to his friend Jittery some of the facts he is uncovering in his investigation. Jittery, who owns some stock in Undergrowth, sells it immediately and thus avoids the huge downswing in share price that ensues when the results of Gumst's investigation are announced. Has Gumst engaged in insider trading? No, because only the person who actually buys or sells the stock can commit insider trading. O No, because neither Snitch nor Gumst had any motive of personal gain. O No, because he was not an officer, director, or major shareholder of Undergrowth. Yes.arrow_forwardPaul Bunyan is the owner of noncumulative 8 percent preferred stock in the Broadview Corporation, which had no earnings or profits in 2012. In 2013, the corporation had large profits and a surplus from which it might properly have declared dividends. The directors refused to do so, however, instead using the surplus to purchase goods necessary for the corporation’s expanding business. The corporation earned a small profit in 2014. The directors at the end of 2014 declared a 10 percent dividend on the common stock and an 8 percent dividend on the preferred stock without paying preferred dividends for 2013. a. Is Bunyan entitled to dividends for 2012? For 2013? b. Is Bunyan entitled to a dividend of 10 percent rather than 8 percent in 2014?arrow_forwardSpence was a promoter in the incorporation of a new business. The new corporation had not yet been formed when he bought Huffman’s employment agency to serve as the nucleus of that corporation. Eventually, the corporation was formed, but it never generated enough cash to pay Huffman for the employment agency. Huffman sued Spence, attempting to hold him personally liable for the amount due. Spence claimed that the corporation was liable and that his personal assets were not a proper target of the suit. Was Spence correct? Explain.arrow_forward
- Smith, a shareholder, filed suit against the board of directors of a corporation in which he had owned stock. Smith claimed that he and other shareholders had not received top dollar for their shares when their corporation had merged with another. Consequently, they sought either a reversal of the merger or payment from the directors to make up for their losses. The directors, Smith argued, had violated their duty of due care because they based their decision on a 20-minute speech by the CEO. Also, the directors had not even looked at the merger documents, let alone studied them. Furthermore, the directors had not sought any independent evaluation by outside experts. For their part, the directors argued that because their decision was made in good faith and was legal, they were protected by the business judgment rule. Were the directors correct?arrow_forwardMikhail and Dana Jackson, doing business as M&D Enterprises, Inc., bought a retail electronics store under a franchise agreement from a national company, Tunes Hut. The Jacksons borrowed from State Bank to pay for the business and signed loan documents and a financing statement, which identified the Jacksons as "Debtors." Elsewhere on the financing statement, the bank identified "M&D Enterprises, Inc., Tunes Hut, Dana K. Jackson, Mikhail C. Jackson" as "Debtors." The statement covered, in part, the store inventory. The bank filed the financing statement with the proper government agency. Three years later, the store closed. Tunes Hut terminated the franchise and took possession of the inventory, claiming the Jacksons and M&D owed Tunes Hut $6,394.73. State Bank filed a suit in a state court against Tunes Hut, claiming a perfected security interest in the inventory with priority over Tunes Hut's claim. Did the bank's security interest take priority over Tunes Hut’s…arrow_forwardThe Johnson Company, a corporation organized under the laws of State X, after proper authorization by the shareholders, sold its entire assets to the Samson Company, also a State X corporation. Ellen, an unpaid creditor of the Johnson Company, sues the Samson Company upon her claim. Is Samson liable? Explain.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education